The Golden State Warriors are on their way their 73rd victory of the season, and Stephen Curry hit an equally preposterous milestone Wednesday. With his eighth 3-pointer of the game against the Memphis Grizzlies, the Warriors guard and reigning Most Valuable Player has made 400 3s on the season.
This has never been done before. Curry is the only player to even hit 300 3-pointers in a single season. He did that more than a month ago.
Last year, Curry made 286 3-pointers. That’s second all-time. Third is his teammate, Klay Thompson, this season. He’s made 276, including four on Wednesday.
This season, the Milwaukee Bucks made a total of 433 3-pointers. Three years ago, the Memphis Grizzlies made 382. No one has ever played the game remotely like Curry, and that’s why no one else has come close to reaching this record.
“Early in my career, I didn’t even like to shoot,” Steve Nash told Bruce Arther of the Toronto Star in December. “Different coaches had been imploring me to shoot, but you know, I’m a people pleaser. My mentality was, if I had a tough shot I would take it in the fourth quarter. I think Steph says, I make shots. So he’s constantly pushed the envelope of what kind of shots he can take.
“It’s almost like I didn’t know what Steph is doing was possible. Because I’d never seen it. He’s taken the things that those ahead of him did, and expanded on them at a rate that’s unbelievable. Some of the shots he takes, 10 or 20 years ago you would have said, what is he doing? I think he’s the most skilled player we’ve ever had, as far as all-around skill.”
Nash is one of Curry’s main influences, and he was one of the best and most creative players of his generation. Nash is also one of the greatest shooters in NBA history, a member of the 50-40-90 club. For years, Curry has been compared to Nash because of his style and skill level. In Nash’s 18 seasons in the NBA, though, he never made more than 179 3-pointers in a season. Four hundred? He never even attemped that many — his season high was 381 attempts.
Curry will soon join Nash, now a special assistant to the Warriors, as a two-time MVP. He’s also firmly established himself as the best shooter who has ever lived. The ones who came before him couldn’t even imagine this.
Los Angeles Lakers legend Kobe Bryant said goodbye to the NBA on Wednesday night, and he definitely did it on his terms. The Lakers star finished his final game with 60 points on a stunning 50 shots, the most of his NBA career and the most in NBA history since 1984.
It was the most points by a player in their final NBA game. It was the most shots taken in recorded NBA history, passing Michael Jordan. It was an unrelenting assault in the form of shots. The man so revered for his indomitable will showed it in gunning in a way never before seen. Bryant made his career by doing things his way the entire time, and it was that way in the end.
The night came amid emotional farewells from former teammates, rivals and fans. Bryant missed his first five shots, clearly caught up in the emotion of the moment, but once he got cooking, he went right to work.
For Bryant, whose game was always built upon usage, taking it on himself to drag his teams forward, it’s only fitting that the Lakers’ future Hall of Famer ended his career putting up an insane scoring night amid a torrent of shots.
Ever since passage of the Affordable Care Act, a fierce debate has been waged over whether the law would work as advertised. While advocates promised that the design of new insurance markets would transform the way consumers buy health insurance, critics warned that the new market would never succeed. Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz have had front-row seats to the debate, and the two reporters took a few minutes to discuss when — and if — the market would stabilize.
Margot: It’s been a few weeks of bad news about the Obamacare marketplaces. On Friday, we learned that UnitedHealth has decided to pull out of Obamacare marketplaces in two states. The week before, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association put out a paper offering not-too-subtle hints that some members were losing money. Reed, you wrote recently about how surprising stasis in the employer insurance market means we can look forward to much smaller Obamacare marketplaces than most people expected when the health law passed. And the parade of struggling start-up insurer companies has extended to Maine’s Community Health Options, one of the co-ops that had long been held up as one of the most successful. Health insurers need to submit their rates to regulators in the next few weeks — or decide to exit markets. Should we be worried about a health insurance apocalypse?
Reed: I think people have a tendency to catastrophize, especially when it comes to Obamacare. UnitedHealth, which is one of the nation’s largest health insurers, has only reluctantly embraced the new market, and the company is always held up as an example of why the sky is falling and why Obamacare is going to crash and burn: If United can’t make it, no one can.
United has only a small fraction of the individual market, but some of the Blues are also struggling. What is most troubling is the fact that many insurers are losing money. You may not sympathize much with the insurance companies — and no one does — but they have to make enough money to pay claims. Do you think those losses are temporary — or a sign that the market is fundamentally unstable and potentially unsustainable?
Margot: I think some of both. It seems clear that some insurers just made pricing mistakes. I’d include a lot of the nonprofit co-op plans that have gone belly up in that category. United may fall in that category, too, in some places. That doesn’t seem to me like a permanent problem. If everyone priced too low, they can just raise their prices in future years, and it’ll be O.K. That’s not great for middle-class people who pay their own premiums, but most people in the exchanges won’t notice a difference because of the way the subsidies work.
These markets also turned out to be more complicated than some insurers expected. Some regulatory choices didn’t go their way. And it does look as if more customers than you might expect are staying enrolled in plans for only part of the year, which makes it hard for the insurers to collect premiums. But I think they’ll probably figure it out.
Reed: But isn’t it a vicious cycle? The big players won’t stay in markets unless they can attract enough customers to make it worth their while. Those who say Obamacare is doomed argue that the premiums are just too high for people who don’t qualify for a subsidy. If you are insured and relatively healthy, you may not feel as if the coverage is a good deal. The deductibles are steep, meaning you end up paying for a lot of your care before you see the first dollar of coverage, and you can’t always see your choice of doctor.
The result is that the market could be too small and therefore too volatile to attract mainstream insurers like United.
How do you solve that?
Margot: Well, it seems clear that you need some competition in every market to keep prices low. But maybe we don’t need the big carriers to play everywhere. As you noted, United barely showed up in the exchanges in the first place, and customers in most markets still have a lot of choices. The Medicaid-managed care plans seem to be having some success in this market, so maybe they will be a big part of the exchange mix.
I also think it’s worth looking at the states where things are going well and the insurers are making money: California, Vermont, Washington. Those state exchanges made some different regulatory choices early on that got more people into the new markets right away, so their markets stabilized more quickly.
Reed: You’re right that you may not need the established players for the market to work. The market may not look the way we thought it would, with the same insurers and same characteristics as the employer market. But one of the reasons insurers are leaving is because of the market’s instability. There’s tremendous churn in this market, with most people switching plans every year to try to find a cheaper alternative.
I’m not sure I know what the business model is for an insurer, if the expectation is that you’re going to keep your customers for only a year. It makes achieving long-term goals like keeping people healthier and focusing on preventive measures much harder because there may be no payoff for the insurer.
Margot: Yes, I think this is one of the contradictions of the Affordable Care Act’s design. The whole idea was that competition between the insurance companies would help to hold down prices, the way it does for, say, electronics or groceries. In order for that system to work, you need people to actually switch plans if their plan starts charging more than the competition. The fact that people are actually switching seems like a sign that this market is functioning as it was designed. But as you point out, all that churn sure makes it hard for an insurer to make money by investing in its customers’ long-term health. But the individual market, pre-Obamacare, also had a lot of churn.
Reed: Yes, there’s always been churn, but the insurers got pretty good at figuring out which people they wanted to insure by turning away the people who were most likely to cost them the most money. They definitely figured out how to make money.
It’s easier to smooth all of this out if you insure more people. Do you think there’s opportunity to see the market increase in size? I know insurers in the early years suffered when some states allowed people to keep their existing plans. Those plans that were grandmothered, as it is called.
Margot: My sense from talking to folks in the industry is that the grandmothered plans really wrecked their early calculations. The Obama administration, responding to a political freakout about people whose plans were getting canceled in 2014, let states keep them for a few more years. The result was that healthy people tended to hold onto their old, cheaper plans, while sick people went to the exchanges. You can see how that might make the exchange market unprofitable for new entrants.
I do think the market size is a bit of a chicken-or-egg question. Your story last week on stability in the employer market did such a good job of laying this out. Everyone (including the Congressional Budget Office) expected that employers would start dropping coverage once the marketplaces were up and running. That didn’t happen. It means that Obamacare has been much less disruptive to the status quo than many people thought. But it also means that the exchange markets are smaller and probably more expensive than people thought, too. If prices keep going up, maybe they’ll never grow much. It certainly seems like everyone is cutting down their long-term estimates for exchange enrollment.
Reed: The other possibility would be to expand the pool of people who qualify for subsidies. Is that a political nonstarter?
</head><body leftMargin="0" topMargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" style="background:transparent" >
Margot: It’s such an interesting question. Every time I write a story about the health law, I get comments and emails from people just above the income cutoff for subsidies. These are the people who have been most hurt by the health law. Plans on the exchanges are just really expensive for them, and often come with big deductibles, too. And if premiums keep rising, they’ll keep getting squeezed. Analysts from the Urban Institute have done the math and found that some of them are paying more than 25 percent of their income on health care now. Still, it is awfully hard to imagine Congress approving massive new spending to make Obamacare more generous. Hillary Clinton has some proposals about affordability, but they don’t include expanding subsidies.
Reed: One of the strengths of the law, and its main weakness, is its emphasis on keeping the status quo. While President Obama may have overpromised when he said you can keep your plan if you like it, the insurance isn’t radically different. The only way companies can seem to bring down prices is by narrowing networks of hospitals and doctors or hiking deductibles. While Bernie Sanders seems to be offering the most dramatic change by proposing that everyone switch to a government plan like Medicare, I’m still looking for a market response — some real change in how care is delivered that is much less expensive or at least more effective.
Margot: This is the thing I say whenever anyone asks me what I think about the health law. It basically baked in all of the complexity and dysfunction of the pre-existing American health care system.
Reed: We’re heading into the season when insurers and state regulators start talking about next year. Any thoughts on what we might expect?
Margot: I’m expecting them to ask for rate increases! The insurance companies are doing everything they can to broadcast their intentions to charge more. There are reasons we should expect the plans to do so even if the markets were already stable. Some of the early training-wheel programs set up by the law expire, which means the plans have to pay out more claims for really expensive patients. Last week, I heard Peter Lee, who runs Covered California, the most stable market of all, say he’s expecting bigger rate hikes next year than the last two. The Department of Health and Human Services has even signaled it expects rates to go up. This week, it put out a research paper to remind the public that requests to hike rates don’t always matter for individual consumers.
What will you be keeping your eyes open for to shape your thinking about how these markets will do long term?
Reed: We should keep watching for the exits.
But we should also look at what happens with some of the newer players, like Oscar, the for-profit company in New York that has a lot of capital. And I know that some of the big health systems — I’m thinking of another hometown player, Northwell Health, formerly North Shore-LIJ Health System — have started offering plans. Some of these systems, like Northwell, have had some success in attracting customers and think they can make a go of it.
And we should watch the Department of Justice. If it approves some of those big health insurance mergers like Anthem and Cigna and Aetna and Humana, my guess is those companies will not be leaving the marketplaces anytime soon.
OAKLAND, Calif. — On his way to fulfilling his obligations for a news media maw that included roughly 20 television cameras, Stephen Curry turned to a staff member who was with him during his rookie 2009-10 season. Curry was struck by how much things had changed.
“Another ’09-type scrum,” Curry joked.
It was a different time, of course. Curry recalled that the Golden State Warriors were essentially out of the playoff picture by the All-Star break. Nobody was talking about records or legacies. His face was not splashed on magazine covers. He was merely trying to survive the grind of a taxing profession and improve.
On Tuesday, Curry and his teammates prepared for the opportunity to make more history. With a win against the Memphis Grizzlies on Wednesday at Oracle Arena, the Warriors (72-9) will own the N.B.A. record for victories in a single season, breaking their tie with the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls, who went 72-10.
“To be in this position is special,” Curry said, adding: “It’s a reminder of how far we’ve come. My first three years, we didn’t make the playoffs. So your perspective is a little different.”
If nothing else, the final day of the regular season will have some flair. As the Warriors close out their chase, Kobe Bryant is expected to appear in his final game when the Los Angeles Lakers host the Utah Jazz at Staples Center. Bryant, 37, announced in November that he would retire at the end of the season, his 20th with the Lakers.
Bryant won his fifth and final championship when Curry was a first-year player with the Warriors. But even as their careers overlapped for the past seven seasons, they are headliners of different eras, the slow erosion of Bryant’s game coinciding with Curry’s sharp emergence.
After Tuesday’s practice, Curry sounded almost wistful about the season and everything the Warriors had achieved. Curry recalled that when the San Antonio Spurs’ Gregg Popovich coached the Western Conference All-Stars in February, he gave a little speech in which he reminded the players to slow down and appreciate the present. The message stuck with Curry.
“It’s human nature at times to let your mind drift off,” Curry said, “but it cheats the beauty of what’s going on right now. It’s kind of like society in general — so fast paced. You’re always wondering about what’s going on next, what I have to do next — tomorrow, next week, next month.”
The Warriors are a relatively young team, and there is an understandable tendency to imagine their future and all the possibilities. What else can they accomplish? Curry wants to guard against that instinct. There are no guarantees — ask Bryant about the toll of injuries, about the turnover of team personnel — and the Warriors may never again find themselves in a position to hunt another record as fabled as the one held by the Michael Jordan-era Bulls.
“I didn’t understand how hard the 72 wins in the N.B.A. really was until I got into the N.B.A.,” Luke Walton, an assistant coach for the Warriors, said, “and then I remember thinking to myself that the record will never be touched because it’s just too hard to win that consistently. And for our guys to do what they’ve done all season is just incredible.”
It goes a long way toward explaining why Curry and teammates like Draymond Green and Klay Thompson have refused to miss a game down the stretch. It has become a thornier issue for the coaching staff. Walton acknowledged that Coach Steve Kerr’s late-season calculus would have been a lot of different if not for the team’s pursuit of 73 wins.
“The downside is normally none of our starters would be playing,” Walton said. “Because of what we’ve accomplished this season, and our guys saying they want to go for the record, our minds can’t switch strictly to that championship goal until after this game is over.”
On Tuesday, Kerr missed practice because of a doctor’s appointment, Walton said. Aside from Kerr’s absence, though, it was a fairly typical morning for the Warriors here at their training complex. They watched game film, worked on fundamentals and avoided any mention of the number 73, at least until they fielded about a bazillion questions from reporters.
“You can’t not talk about it at this point,” Green said. “The whole world is talking about it now. It’s everywhere. There’s no way to hide from it.”
The Warriors seemed pretty loose, all things considered. Several members of the Los Angeles Angels, including Mike Trout, attended practice. Celebrity cameos are a regular occurrence with the Warriors. It was no big deal.
“Talented guys in their trade,” Curry said. “So it’s pretty cool for them to come out and watch us practice.”
Bryant, who seems to study the game’s history as much as any player, has encouraged Curry and his teammates to pursue history, to collect championships. And on a night when Bryant says he will conclude his career, the Warriors will go about their own business — and continue to press forward.
“In Chicago, they have a championship banner that says 72-10,” Green said. “If we don’t win a championship, we’re not posting a banner that says — God willing — 73-9, unless we win the championship. As bad as I want this record, we need to get something to go along with it.”
RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina has been pummeled with boycotts, criticism and cancellations in the wake of its new law on gay and transgender rights. Now liberals and conservatives in the state have turned to pummeling one another.
For North Carolina, a state that has long been considered one of the South’s most moderate, the intense reaction to the law, especially from business interests, has provided an ego-bruising moment.
But beyond ego and self-image, the legislation is exacerbating the political divisions in a state almost evenly divided between conservative and liberal forces. The acrimony is certain to play out not just in one of the nation’s most closely contested races for governor but also in the rare Southern state that can be up for grabs in presidential politics.
And while the state has been pilloried from the left, it is not at all clear who will be the ultimate winner in the battle set in motion by the law, which restricts transgender bathroom use and pre-empts local governments from creating their own anti-discrimination policies.
Democrats inside and outside North Carolina have been supported by a number of corporations, and the opposition looms large in a state with a long pro-business tradition.
Over the weekend, the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina N.A.A.C.P., vowed that the Moral Mondays movement, which flooded the State Capitol with liberal activists in the past to protest the policies of the Republican-controlled legislature, would begin “a campaign of mass sit-ins at the General Assembly.” The protesters plan to take the action if the General Assembly does not repeal the bill before it meets again in regular session on April 25.
But Republicans have been sweepingly dismissive of the fallout. When PayPal said it would cancel its plan to open a global operations center in Charlotte and employ more than 400 people there, Lt. Gov. Dan Forest said, “If our action in keeping men out of women’s bathrooms and showers protected the life of just one child or one woman from being molested or assaulted, it was worth it.”
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — In the 2002 comedy “Barbershop,” the most worrisome problem facing the shop owner Calvin Palmer (Ice Cube) is a duplicitous loan shark who wants to turn the neighborhood fixture into a strip club. Two years later, in “Barbershop 2: Back in Business,” Calvin’s biggest headache is competition from Nappy Cutz, a national franchise opening up across the street that, according to Calvin’s own clients, boasts “honeys in bikinis” serving wine to clients and live fish in the floor that customers can have fried, grilled or “fondued.”
In “Barbershop: The Next Cut,” which opens this week, Calvin’s problems are considerably worse than just evil moneylenders and rival shops. Money is still tight; to make ends meet, he’s sharing space and chairs with a beauty salon run by Angie (Regina Hall). But larger troubles are looming right outside the barbershop’s doors, on the streets of Chicago’s South Side. Kids and cashiers are getting shot over trifles; in one darkly comic scene, the denizens of the shop try to one-up one another over who’s been robbed most often.
“I wanted to do a movie about what’s really going on in Chicago,” Ice Cube explained.
But how does one begin to make a funny movie about gun violence, a devastating problem in Chicago, which has experienced a sharp rise in shootings this year? The “Barbershop” franchise (two movies and a 2005 TV series) has occasionally glanced at serious subjects. When the shop’s elder, Eddie (Cedric the Entertainer), poked fun at Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. in the first film, black leaders, including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, called for a public apology from the studio MGM. But the franchise seemed an unlikely vehicle to address the topic of gun violence on Chicago’s South Side — even if the shop’s location is at ground zero of the conflict.
To take on the challenge — and revive the series after a 12-year hiatus — a producer, Robert Teitel, turned to Malcolm D. Lee, the director of “The Best Man,” the 1999 ensemble movie, and its 2013 sequel, “The Best Man Holiday.” Both films had been box-office hits, and both required Mr. Lee to mesh comic moments with dramatic scenes revolving around topics like infidelity, work woes and cancer. “If you look at the actors that I cast in ‘Best Man,’ Terrence Howard, Harold Perrineau, they’re not comedic actors,” he said. “But they’re great actors who can embody a role and make it funny.”
He had also directed large ensemble casts on both “Best Man” films — handy experience for the latest “Barbershop,” which, at any given moment, might have more than a dozen actors (including Nicki Minaj in a major role) vying for lines in a confined space. “You’re talking about 75 percent of your movie being in one room,” Mr. Lee said. “That’s a lot of time to be in a shop with 15 people in a single scene.”
Earlier this month, Mr. Lee was in a suite at the Beverly Hilton here talking about the challenges of directing “Barbershop: The Next Cut.” In a crisp white T-shirt and black jeans, tall and goateed and (fittingly) freshly shorn, the 46-year-old director might easily be mistaken for one of the dapper, lovelorn characters in his films.
One of Mr. Lee’s main concerns was finding the right balance between humor and drama. “Tone was big,” he said. “I wanted to make sure the emotional spine was right. But I also wanted to make sure we never let the audience forget that they’re in a comedy.”
Although the film is an ode of sorts to Chicago, with shout-outs to deep dish pizza and Oprah Winfrey, Mr. Lee is a proud New Yorker, born in Queens in 1970 and raised in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. “I claim Brooklyn more than anyplace else,” he said. Growing up, he watched a lot of movies. “I was a big John Hughes fan, and I remember seeing those quirky coming-of-age movies where I wasn’t represented. I’d see that little black extra that’s walking by and go, what’s that kid’s story? That’s probably my story.”